Summary

This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process
and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
(RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991
Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as
well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug
treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment
process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment
assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and
outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC
treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of
prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to
an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end
of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following
an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files
for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle
Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the
number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment
Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort,
Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge
codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare.
Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity,
age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication,
followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in
elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of
his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him,
whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol,
inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6
(Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the
respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical
problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had
trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life,
lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was
caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and
accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the
counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him
problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking
clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in
treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the
respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted,
anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed,
rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the
respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends,
ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever
arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last
week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction,
disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities
in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges,
individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff
and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation,
drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the
counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building
confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the
respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got
along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs
together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in
the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he
was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with
old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six
months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other
opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group):
Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational
Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a
GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the
respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational
training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt
drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year
the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery,
fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or
vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health,
relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the
respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug
treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended,
whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other
relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior
engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and
unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation
Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison
Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of
treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting,
problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of
drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number
of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17
(Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and
Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up
Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its
source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up
(Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or
opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort
and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if
parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the
National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment
condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

none

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Time Period(s)

Study Purpose

The relationship between substance abuse and
crime and its impact on society is well documented. Researchers have
also found that an overwhelming majority of drug-using offenders who
have not received substance abuse treatment are becoming reinvolved in
criminal activity as well as returning to their drug of choice within
three months after being released from prison. Treatment programs that
have been incorporated into the criminal justice system have yielded
some promising results related to treatment outcome. A review of
studies conducted on prison-based therapeutic communities indicates
that such programs are effective in significantly lowering relapse and
recidivism rates. Even with more initiatives being implemented toward
providing offenders with drug treatment, only through evaluation
efforts will questions about the effectiveness and benefits of
corrections-based substance abuse treatment programs begin to be more
fully answered. This study sought to evaluate the treatment process
and outcomes associated with the In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC)
component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency
Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of
prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the
RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the
prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems.

Study Design

The study design included process and outcome
evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment
facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison
inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an
ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of
treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an
offender's release from the ITC program. For Parts 1-4, background and
baseline data from Kyle ITC inmates during their last two months of
treatment were collected. To be eligible for inclusion in the study,
inmates had to consent to participation as a research subject and
agree to allow researchers legal access to their data files as well as
to search for them in follow-up phases of the project. Those who
agreed were asked to complete a set of assessment forms during a
series of three one- hour sessions. Session One (Part 5) included a
general background questionnaire pertaining to pre-prison
sociodemographic characteristics as well as other items, such as
criminal and drug use history. Session Two (Part 6) focused on
during-treatment measures, such as ratings of the program and
treatment staff. Session Three (Part 7) was a collection of
standardized measures of addiction as well as cognitive and
psychological functioning. Afterwards, a Client Locator File was
completed by the inmate to help fieldworkers find him for follow-up
interviews. Parts 8 and 9 are the six-month and one-year follow-up
interviews with the ITC graduates, respectively. These interviews
included measures of criminal recidivism and drug abuse relapse, along
with other psychosocial and behavioral measurements. These interviews
utilized Correctional Residential Treatment forms created by the
researchers at the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian
University. These forms included a comprehensive set of intake and
during-treatment data collection instruments for assessing
psychosocial functioning, program structure, and counseling activities
and services in residential treatment settings. Researchers were not
able to interview the comparison group of parolees prior to their
being paroled from the general prison population. Thus, self-reported
background and baseline data (Parts 10 and 11, respectively) were
collected as part of their 6-month follow-up interviews (Part
12). Part 13 contains the data from the one-year follow-up interviews
with the comparison group. While Correctional Residential Treatment
forms similar to those given to the ITC graduates were also
administered to the comparison group, caution is strongly advised in
interpreting differences between the Kyle ITC cohort and the
comparison group on these self-reported data because of the
possibility of response bias. Parolees from the Kyle cohort, as well
as from the comparison group were rewarded monetarily for
participation in the study. The six-month and one-year follow-up
interviews (for both groups) were each accompanied by status reports
provided by parole officers who also took hair samples of the parolee,
which underwent clinical analysis. Part 14 contains the reporting data
provided by the parole officer at the six-month follow-up interviews,
while Part 15 is comprised of the hair specimen data. Parts 16 and 17
make up the reporting data and hair specimen data, respectively, for
both groups taken at the time of the one-year follow-up
interviews. Part 18 contains data on both the Kyle cohort and the
comparison group taken from administrative records data from the Texas
Department of Public Safety's Criminal History Records Information
which includes data on parolee incarcerations. Part 19 contains
administrative records data on both the Kyle cohort and the comparison
group taken from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which
utilized the parole officer report database. From this database
information on an offender's residence, most recent arrest history,
and next of kin were obtained.

Sample

All Texas state prison inmates are required to complete a
battery of assessments before being sent to their assigned unit. At
the time of this study, part of the battery included a screen for drug
use. Based on these records, inmates who were classified as drug
abusers and who had approximately nine to ten months left until
possible parole were identified for review by a treatment referral
committee. Inmate records were further screened for illicit drug use,
time left to serve, and prior criminal offense. Next, names of
eligible inmates were forwarded to the Texas Parole Board for review
decisions on ITC placement. The Parole Board considered the ITC
committee's recommendation for ITC placement and either accepted or
rejected it. In many cases where parole was granted without ITC
placement, the Parole Board believed that the inmate would not benefit
from, or was inappropriate for, ITC treatment. All subjects
participating in this study (Kyle cohort and comparison group) met
these eligibility criteria. The treatment sample pool was identified
using the Kyle ITC database which included 482 inmates admitted to the
treatment program between June 10, 1993, and January 31, 1994 (and who
were thereby eligible to graduate between March 10, 1994, and October
31, 1994). All 482 Kyle ITC inmates were targeted for inclusion in
the study. The graduation rate for the Kyle ITC program was 80
percent, resulting in 386 inmates. Of these 386 Kyle ITC inmates, 93
were unavailable for assessment (e.g., on temporary medical leave or
refused to sign a release form). The Kyle cohort comprised the
remaining 293 inmates, who were administered the full set of
during-treatment assessments. The comparison group of parolees were
selected from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division database and included all available inmates paroled (or
scheduled to be paroled) between March and December 1994. There were
103 paroled inmates comprising the sample for the comparison group.

Universe

Male state prison inmates in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice system who had been classified as drug abusers and
who had approximately nine to ten months left in their sentences until
possible parole.

Data Source

Data Type(s)

administrative records data

clinical data

survey data

Description of Variables

Variables in the 19 files for this study include:
Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade
level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice
education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the
Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort,
Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle
Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were
three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview
Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether
the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made
friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he
held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with,
yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so,
specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack),
and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle
Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused
emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were
important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt
sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad
easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether the
respondent showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by
the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk
to, respected him, or taught him problem solving, and whether the
respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing
thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three
Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a
child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous,
inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious,
irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had
trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job
or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or
hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether
the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction,
disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities
in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges,
individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff
and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation,
drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the
counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building
confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the
respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got
along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs
together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in
the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he
was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with
old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six
months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other
opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group):
Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational
Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a
GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up
Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the
respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational
training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt
drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year
the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery,
fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or
vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health,
relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the
respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug
treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended,
whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other
relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior
engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and
unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month
Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group and Probation
Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison
Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of
treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting,
problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of
drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number
of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17
(Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and
Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up
Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its
source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up
(Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or
opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort
and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if
parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the
National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment
condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.

Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales

Several Likert-type scales were used. In Part 19, the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score was
used.